Richard Stephens- School of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom
Eco-driving is a style of driving that minimizes energy consumption, while gamification refers to the use of game techniques to motivate user engagement in non-game contexts. This paper comprises a literature review assessing applying gamification to encourage eco-driving. The Web of Science Core Collection and EBSCO Host platforms were searched in February 2022. Qualifying sources included peer review journal articles, conference proceedings papers, academic book chapters and dissertation reports. The final sample comprised 39 unique publications, of which 34 described gamification adjunct systems used during driving. Most were designed as smartphone apps, but some ran on bespoke in-car feedback displays. Alternatively, using game-based learning, 5 studies described videogames designed to encourage eco-driving. Popular gamification elements were: an eco-driving score; self-comparisons or comparisons with others via leader boards; rewards; challenges, missions or levels; and emotive feedback (e.g., emojis). One system aimed to discourage driving at busy times. While 13 studies assessed the efficacy of the various systems, these were generally of poor quality. This developing literature contains many good ideas for applying gamification to promote eco-driving. However, evidence for efficacy is largely absent and researchers are encouraged to continue to evaluate a wide range of gamification approaches to promote eco-driving.
Introduction
Eco-driving is a style of vehicle driving that reduces energy consumption, maximizing mileage per unit of energy consumed (Stillwater and Kurani, 2013). Eco-driving requires adherence to speed limits, accelerating and braking smoothly, avoiding over revving the engine, use of engine braking and maintaining a constant speed (Magaña and Muñoz-Organero, 2015). Eco-driving may also include vehicle maintenance, trip planning, switching to other transport where appropriate and vehicle choice (Stillwater and Kurani, 2013). Eco-driving may save up to 25% of fuel (Kamal et al., 2011). There is overlap between eco-driving and safe driving since safe driving entails observing speed limits and avoiding harsh acceleration and braking (Vaezipour et al., 2019).
Gamification refers to use of game techniques in non-game contexts to motivate user engagement (Diewald et al., 2013). Gamification provides intrinsic motivation for a behavior by virtue of rewards related to gameplay, such as attaining a target score, as opposed to extrinsic rewards like cash. McGonigal (2011) specifies four elements of intrinsic motivation: satisfying work with clear goals and tasks; hopes and/or experiences of success; social connection; and meaning. There are some overlaps between these elements and psychological flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre, 1989; Šimleša et al., 2018). The flow state is inherently enjoyable and is experienced when there is a good match between the challenges presented by a situation and the skills a person possesses to meet such challenges. Flow will not, however, be experienced for challenges that are too easy or difficult, and neither are these likely to be perceived as enjoyable. In the context of eco-driving, gamification may generate flow and consequent intrinsic motivation and enjoyment by increasing the level of challenge of the otherwise mundane task of driving.
Diewald et al. (2013) reviewed gamification in relation to driving. However, the eco-driving section was short, referenced few peer reviewed studies and an update has become timely. This paper comprises a systematized literature review (Grant and Booth, 2009) assessing using gamification to influence eco-driving. The aims of the review were (i) to summarize elements of gamification applied to eco-driving in the literature; (ii) to assess evidence of efficacy of gamified eco-driving solutions across shorter and longer time scales; and (iii) to assess user experience evaluations of the various gamified approaches.
Methods
Searches were carried out in February 2022 in the Web of Science Core Collection and the EBSCO Host databases: Computer Science/Engineering Databases, Psychology and Sociology; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; Academic Search Complete; eBook Collection (EBSCOhost); MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, AgeLine, CINAHL Plus with Full Text.
The search term including Boolean operators was: “gamification” or “gamified” or “gameful” or “serious games” or “game-based learning” or “game” or “competition” or “competitive” or “leader board” or “leaderboard” and “ecodriving” or “eco-driving” or “eco driving” or “energy-efficient driving” or “energy efficient driving” or “low impact driving” or “green driving” or “safe driving.”
Study period protocol: Source publication year was open. Included publications spanned the period 2003–2021.
Inclusion
Due to the relatively small size of this developing literature a wide variety of publication types was specified. Qualifying publication types were: peer review journal articles, conference proceedings papers, chapters in academic books and dissertation reports. Studies were included if they presented any gamification concept applied to eco-driving even if these terms were not mentioned. For example, a study mentioning “competition” but not “gamification” qualified for inclusion; a study mentioning “safe driving” qualified for inclusion where relevant behaviors, such as avoiding speeding, were mentioned. “Game-based learning” approaches also qualified for inclusion.
Exclusion
Sources were excluded if no specific intervention or system was specified, if the content duplicated content already included from another source, or where the focus was on software design rather than application.
Data collection process
This is summarized in the PRISMA diagram (see Figure 1). Data were extracted by the author.
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram.
Research quality was assessed study-by-study in the results narrative.
Results
Elements of gamification applied to eco-driving in the literature
Of the final sample of 39 papers, 34 described a gamification solution for eco-driving in the form of an adjunct system designed for use while driving (see Table 1). These 34 papers describe 25 different adjunct systems. Most were designed as standalone smartphone apps (n = 12), some ran on bespoke dashboard feedback displays (n = 8), and others combined these formats (n = 3). Some used email and websites to convey feedback and gamified outcomes (n = 2).
Table 1. Details of adjunct systems (n = 25) and game-based learning systems (n = 5).
Eco-driving behaviors encouraged were: reducing speed (n = 18); smooth braking (n = 17); smooth acceleration (n = 16); avoiding excessive RPM (n = 7); coasting (n = 3); avoiding excessive idling (running the engine while stationary; n = 3); avoiding use of air conditioning (n = 1); checking tire pressure (n = 1); minimizing cargo (n = 1); avoiding driving (n = 1). Some adjunct systems logged energy or fuel use (n = 11) or CO2 emissions (n = 5). These are illustrated in Figure 2A.
Figure 2. Eco-driving elements (A) and gamification elements (B) deployed across the 34 adjunct studies.
Gamification elements were: an abstract eco-driving score (n = 20), a concrete eco-driving score such as miles per gallon, miles per kWh, or CO2 emissions reduction (n = 4); comparisons with others via leader boards (n = 19); self-comparisons (n = 6); non-fiscal rewards such as badges (n = 9); fiscal rewards such as restaurant vouchers (n = 5); challenges, missions, quests or levels (n = 5); emotive feedback such as happy/sad face emojis (n = 1), graphic trees that flourish or whither dependent on eco-driving (n = 1); connecting eco-driving to progress on the traditional board game snakes and ladders (n = 1); a car avatar that appears happy or sad dependent on eco-driving the real car (n = 1); a massage system to relieve stress in traffic jams (n = 1). Gamification elements such as feedback were usually presented during driving (n = 14), after driving (n = 8), both during and after driving (n = 2), or the timing was not clearly specified (n = 1). These are illustrated in Figure 2B.
Alternatively, five studies described four game-based learning systems comprising videogames designed to encourage eco-driving (see Table 1). Three of these videogames were driving simulations with elements of eco-driving promoted within. Two ran on desktop PCs, while the third was accessed on a smartphone. The eco-driving behaviors encouraged were: reducing speed (n = 3), smooth acceleration (n = 2), smooth braking (n = 1) and feeding back energy use (n = 1). The fourth game, delivered via smartphone, comprised a prompt system designed to nudge drivers off the road at busy times, for example by encouraging a driver to delay an intended car journey until after rush hour. Gamification elements were: an abstract eco-driving score (n = 2); challenges and levels (n = 2); a leader board (n = 1); non-fiscal rewards (n = 1), and time sensitive decisions and randomness interfering with progress (n = 1). Gamification elements were usually presented during simulated driving (n = 3).
Evidence of efficacy of gamified eco-driving solutions that have been trialed, across shorter and longer time scales
Efficacy evaluation studies have been carried out for 12 of the 25 adjunct systems and one of the four game-based systems (see Table 2). Magaña and Muñoz-Organero (2015) evaluated a smartphone-based adjunct system across 36 drivers over 2,160 road trips in Spain. Only this latest iteration of the data set is reviewed here, although some of the same data appear to be presented in Magaña and Muñoz-Organero (2013) and Magaña and Muñoz-Organero (2014). Within each city, six drivers used the app on a setting which provided instant feedback of eco-driving scores, in-game achievements and social comparisons, while six further drivers used the app set to display only speed limit alerts, as a control group. Presented analyses in the form of t-tests comparing the means of the experimental and control groups in each city, appear to have been performed incorrectly, utilizing 60 data points per driver, which violates the assumption of data independence underlying parametric statistical analysis. A re-analysis of the performance means in Tables 7–9 (p. 67) showed that following 60 trips when the experimental group had the app running, average fuel consumption (l/100 km) was lower by 0.59 compared with controls, t(34) = 3.078, p = 0.004, d = 1.026. Based on this re-analysis, this paper provides good evidence for the efficacy of a gamified app for encouraging eco-driving.
Table 2. Evaluation studies.
Steinberger et al. (2017a) evaluated their adjunct system, “Coastmaster,” which encourages minimal use of the brake pedal during transitions from higher to lower speed limit areas. An ideal speed transition map is displayed visually and the driver is tasked with matching their speed to the transition target speed in real time. In a simulator, 32 male drivers aged 18–25 drove for 16 min with and without the system, with condition order counterbalanced. With the system activated inferential analyses showed reduced overall speed, reduced driving over the speed limit, and greater anticipation showed by more rapid speed lowering across speed limit transitions. There is much to commend the design and analysis of this study, with only the relatively small sample size counting against it. However, a further evaluation was presented in the same year. Steinberger et al. (2017b) showed that “Coastmaster” significantly lowered speed in a further simulator study with 24 male drivers. Taken together, these studies provide good evidence for the efficacy of the “Coastmaster” intervention.
Stillwater (2011) evaluated an adjunct system across 42 drivers on public roads over 1 year, finding mixed results. There was no overall benefit of the intervention for energy economy, but certain individuals who showed expertise in deciphering fuel economy feedback benefitted.
The remaining evaluation studies are flawed such that meaningful conclusions cannot be reached. Gunther et al. (2020) evaluated a smartphone-based adjunct system across 108 participants driving on public roads. However, the within-subjects study design was compromised by an invariant condition order. Vaezipour et al. (2019) assessed an adjunct system in 40 volunteers in a simulator, while McConky et al. (2018) also assessed an adjunct system in a simulator with 29 participants. However, in both studies the gamification condition included an extrinsic reward for improving the eco-score. Conflation of gamification and extrinsic rewards means these studies provide weak evidence that gamification can promote eco-driving. Ecker et al. (2011) evaluated a bespoke adjunct system in 36 drivers on roads in the city of Munich. While increased eco-driving score, reduced braking force, reduced time spent accelerating and increased coasting were claimed, the study design was unclear as a single baseline trip was mentioned in the text, yet the figures suggest challenges with multiple baseline measures. This lack of clarity detracts from the study findings.
Ando et al. (2010) evaluated a bespoke adjunct system across 50 participants driving on public roads, while Brouwer et al. (2015) evaluated an adjunct system in a truck driving simulator with 26 mostly male truck drivers. No statistical analysis of the data was carried out in either study. Two further studies are compromised by low statistical power due to a small sample size. Rapp (2016) compared across groups of size n = 8, while Soriguera and Miralles (2016) reported a pilot study with sample size n = 7. Overall, evaluations of eco-driving adjunct systems provide limited evidence for their effectiveness. However, this conclusion reflects absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence.
Hollerit et al. (2021) evaluated a game-based learning approach to eco-driving comprising a driving sim game designed to encourage eco-driving. However, while the system was evaluated across 2,455 users, only a small proportion (n = 78) played for more than 8 min, there was no statistical analysis, and the “improvement with time” study design did not include a control group. Overall, this study presents no evidence of the efficacy of this intervention for encouraging eco-driving, thus there remains an absence of evidence for whether a game-based learning approach can impact positively on eco-driving.
User experience evaluations of the various gamified approaches
Six studies assessed user experiences of using adjunct systems (see Table 2). Four of these collected user impressions during road driving. Stillwater and Kurani (2013) recorded spontaneous reports that driving with instant energy feedback was “like playing a game,” with users challenging themselves to increase their fuel efficiency. However, social comparisons were rated less positively due to a confusing leader board display. Rapp (2016) recorded positive ratings of an eco-driving score and users were motivated by tracking their scores over time. Again, a leader board received mixed ratings due to a perception of unfairness as the top positioned drivers drove small-engined cars (although this could motivate switching to more economical cars – a desirable eco-driving outcome). A feature that displayed money saved via reduced fuel use was requested by users, and a desire was expressed for live feedback during driving, as found on other adjunct systems. Reiner and Reder (2014) recorded positive ratings of visual feedback including steering recommendations, an applause sound when eco-driving behavior was displayed, and a “puuuh” sound when not. Bahadoor and Hosein (2016) recorded users feeling “compelled” to see what badges their contacts had received, while a map displaying positive driving events (retrospective feedback) was positively rated. All users positively rated the possibility of receiving fiscal rewards for eco-driving. Brouwer et al. (2015) recorded positive evaluations of live feedback comprising an eco-speed range, a display of 1–5 stars and a leader board in a simulator study.
Vaezipour et al. (2016) had users evaluate design ideas for a smartphone-based adjunct system. Users preferred personalized eco-driving feedback rather than being shown other people’s performance, with a perception that leader boards should be optional, suggesting that systems should be customizable by the user. Users also highlighted the importance of matching in-app challenges to user skill, avoiding boredom for challenges that are too easy, or frustration for those that are too difficult. Overall users rated eco-driving scores and live feedback positively, while leader boards received mixed evaluations due to design issues.
Two game-based learning systems have undergone user experience evaluations (see Table 2). Bingham and Shope (2003) evaluated a web-based driving sim video game to a mixed reception. While all users enjoyed playing, still 70% did not wish to re-play, and under half would recommend the game to others. Many users wished for more feedback and would have liked a leader board. Rodrigues et al. (2015) evaluated a smartphone-based driving sim video game. There were positive ratings for ease of learning, entertainment, effectiveness and satisfaction. However, the small screen size and small buttons to control driving were rated negatively. Overall, user experience evaluations of game-based eco-driving interventions are mixed.
Discussion
This systematized review evaluated 39 studies assessing gamification applied to eco-driving. Smartphone-based adjuncts to driving were the most frequently used format, followed by bespoke adjunct systems, and videogames designed to encourage eco-driving.
The first aim was to summarize the gamification elements researched in the context of encouraging eco-driving. The most popular of these were an eco-driving score which users were motivated to improve via competition against their own current score, or against others in a leader board format. Some systems included rewards for high scores such as badges (non-fiscal) or restaurant vouchers (fiscal) as well as encouraging longer term engagement via challenges, missions, quests or levels. Some imaginative gamified elements include happy/sad emoji displays, a car avatar character and a graphic showing a tree that becomes greener and lusher as eco-driving increases. Previous research has linked flow to higher road driving speed, theorizing that drivers may speed as a way of coping with the boredom of mundane driving (Stephens and Smith, 2022). This implies that any in-car game, from “I spy” to doing an audio quiz, could potentially ease boredom and reduce the temptation to speed, benefitting eco-driving. In keeping with this, some systems linked non-driving games to eco-driving such as snakes and ladders. Mention should be made of the “Meeco” system designed by Vara et al. (2011) which games drivers to use alternative transport or delay car journeys to less congested times of day.
The second aim was to assess the efficacy of gamification approaches for encouraging eco-driving. While numerous evaluation studies have been carried out (13 examples), the overall quality of this research has been poor. Recurring methodological problems include conflation of gamification with extrinsic rewards, invariant condition ordering, absence of inferential statistical data analysis and small sample size rendering apparent effects unreliable. With only a handful of well-conducted evaluation studies, it remains largely unsubstantiated whether gamification can be successfully applied to encourage eco-driving, and across what timescales. There is some evidence from research on public roads and driving simulators that an eco-score can be effective with Magaña and Muñoz-Organero (2015) finding fuel savings in road driving of 0.59 l/100 km, or 118 liters per year assuming annual driving of 20,000 km. Other researchers showed the “Coastmaster” system designed around a graphic interface guiding smoother transitions to lower speed limits demonstrably reduced overall speed and driving above speed limits in two well designed driving simulator studies (Steinberger et al., 2017a,b). A wide range of other gamification applications have been researched but there is insufficient evidence to adjudge their effectiveness.
A variety of theoretical approaches to gamification have been employed (see Table 1), however, choice of theoretical basis appears to have had little impact on intervention designs or likelihood of a successful outcome.
The third aim was to assess user experience evaluations of gamified approaches to eco-driving. Across eight studies users were willing to accept gamified systems for encouraging eco-driving, with no systems provoking strong negative user experience evaluations. Live feedback was rated positively with some users spontaneously reporting that systems providing instant feedback of fuel/energy use were “like games.” This suggests that for some drivers, the challenge of eco-driving can be fun, interesting and possibly flow inducing. Leader boards were not universally popular due to design issues. It is desirable for gamified systems to be easily customizable so that users can turn off parts that they do not like, rather than abandon them altogether. Adjunct systems used during driving were rated more positively than game-based systems, possibly because users are expected to engage with the latter in their spare time.
One limitation of this review is that no second researcher double checked that inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied fairly. On the other hand, consistent with open science practices, a spreadsheet detailing all included and excluded studies is available in the Supplementary material enabling scrutiny of decisions that were made.
Overall, this review concludes that gamification shows promise as a tool for encouraging eco-driving, but the literature is still developing and further adequately designed evaluation studies are required. Adjunct systems providing an eco-driving score are likely to be successful, although it is not possible to comment on the timescales over which gamification interventions are likely to be helpful. Consequently, there is no reason to limit further investigation to only those gamification elements supported by evidence to date. Rather, researchers should continue to evaluate a wide range of gamification approaches across a range of timescales.
Author contributions
RS contributed to the conception and design of the study, compiled the Boolean search term, performed the database searches, reviewed materials, carried out supplementary statistical analysis, wrote the first draft of the manuscript, carried out manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This research was funded by adam&eveDDB, 12 Bishops Bridge Road, London, W2 6AA. The funder had the following involvement with the study: The funder set the scope for the topic: gamification of eco-driving.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.970851/full#supplementary-material
Supplementary Table 1 | Excel Spreadsheet containing citations for all sources located in the searches, detailing the fate of each source (whether included or excluded), and where excluded, the stage at which exclusion occurred.
References
Ando, A., Nishihori, Y., and Ochi, D. (2010). “Development of a system to promote eco-driving and safe-driving,” in Smart spaces and next generation wired wireless networking, Vol. 6294, eds S. Balandin, R. Dunaytsev, and Y. Koucheryavy (Berlin: Springer), 207–218.
Bahadoor, K., and Hosein, P. (2016). “Application for the detection of dangerous driving and an associated gamification framework,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 4th international conference on future internet of things and cloud workshops (FICLOUDW), (Vienna).
Belotti, F., Kopetzki, S., Berta, R., Paranthaman, P. K., Dange, G. R., Lytrivis, P., et al. (2019). TEAM applications for collaborative road mobility. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 15, 1105–1119.
Beloufa, S., Cauchard, F., Vedrenne, J., Vailleau, B., Kemeny, A., Merienne, F., et al. (2019). Learning eco-driving behaviour in a driving simulator: Contribution of instructional videos and interactive guidance system. Trans. Res. Part F 61, 201–216.
Bingham, C., and Shope, J. T. (2003). An evaluation of the road ready teens video game: Final report. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
Brouwer, R. F. T., Stuiver, A., Hof, T., Kroon, L., Pauwelussen, J., and Holleman, B. (2015). Personalised feedback and eco-driving: An explorative study. Trans. Res. Part C 58, 760–771.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., and LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 815–822. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815
Dange, G. R., Paranthaman, P. K., Bellotti, F., Samaritani, M., Berta, R., and De Gloria, A. (2017). “Assessment of driver behavior based on machine learning approaches in a social gaming scenario,” in Applications in Electronics pervading industry, environment and society. Applepies 2016. Lecture notes in electrical engineering, Vol. 409, ed. A. De Gloria (Cham: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47913-2_24
Degirmenci, K. (2018). “Toward a gamified mobile application to improve ecodriving: A design and evaluation approach,” in Proceedings of the 24th Americas conference on information systems: Association for information systems (AIS), New Orleans, LA, 1–5.
Diewald, S., Möller, A., Roalter, L., Stockinger, T., and Kranz, M. (2013). “Gameful design in the automotive domain: Review, outlook and challenges,” in Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI ‘13). Association for Computing Machinery, (New York, NY), 262–265. doi: 10.1145/2516540.2516575
Ecker, R., Holzer, P., Broy, V., and Butz, A. (2011). “EcoChallenge: A race for efficiency,” in Proceedings of the 13th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, (New York, NY), 91–94. doi: 10.1145/2037373.2037389
Gardelis, K., Lalos, A. S., and Moustakas, K. (2018). Development of an eco-driving simulation training system with natural and haptic interaction in virtual reality environments. VISIGRAPP (2: HUCAPP), 94–101. Available online at: doi: 10.5220/000661950094010
Grant, M. J., and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inform. Lib. J. 26, 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gunther, M., Kacperski, C., and Krems, J. F. (2020). Can electric vehicle drivers be persuaded to eco-drive? A field study of feedback, gamification and financial rewards in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 63:101407. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101407
Hollerit, B., Prendinger, H., Jain, R., Fontes, D., Campos, H., Damas, H., et al. (2021). Implementation and analytics of the distributed eco-driving simulation iCO2. IEEE Access 9, 36252–36265. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3062325
Kamal, M. A. S., Mukai, M., Murata, J., and Kawabe, T. (2011). Ecological vehicle control on roads with up-down slopes. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 12, 783–794. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2011.2112648
Klemke, R., Kravcik, M., and Bohuschke, F. (2014). “Energy-efficient and safe driving using a situation-aware gamification approach in logistics,” in Games and Learning Alliance. GALA 2013. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 8605, ed. A. De Gloria (Cham: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12157-4_1
Krome, S., Walz, S. P., Greuter, S., Holopainen, J., Gerlicher, A., and Schleehauf, M. (2014). “Exploring game ideas for stresslessness in the automotive domain,” in Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interactive entertainment (IE2014). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 1–3. doi: 10.1145/2677758.2677788
Loumidi, A. K., Mittag, S., Lathrop, W. B., and Althoff, F. (2011). “Eco-driving incentives in the North American market,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI ‘11). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 185–192. doi: 10.1145/2381416.2381446
Magaña, V. C., and Muñoz-Organero, M. (2014). The impact of using gamificacion on the eco-driving learning. Ambient Intell. Softw. Appl. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 291, 45–52. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07596-9_5
Magaña, V. C., and Muñoz-Organero, M. (2015). GAFU: Using a gamification tool to save fuel. IEEE Intell. Transport. Syst. Magaz. 7, 58–70. doi: 10.1109/MITS.2015.2408152
Magaña, V. C., and Muñoz-Organero, M. (2013). “GAFU: A game to save fuel using social networks,” in Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on connected vehicles and expo (ICCVE), Vol. 2013, (Las Vegas, NV), 151–157. doi: 10.1109/ICCVE.2013.6799785
McCall, R., and Koenig, V. (2012). “Gaming concepts and incentives to change driver behaviour,” in Proccedings of the 11th annual mediterranean Ad Hoc networking workshop (Med-Hoc-Net), (Ayia Napa), 146–151. doi: 10.1109/MedHocNet.2012.6257115
McConky, K., Chen, R. B., and Gavi, G. R. (2018). A comparison of motivational and informational contexts for improving eco-driving performance. Transport. Res. Part F 52, 62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.11.013
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. London: The Penguin Group.
Nousias, S., Tselios, C., Bitzas, D., Amaxilatis, D., Montesa, J., Lalos, A. S., et al. (2019). Exploiting gamification to improve eco-driving behaviour: The GamECAR approach. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 343, 103–116. doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2019.04.013
Paranthaman, P. K., Dange, G. R., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., and De Gloria, A. (2016). “Gamification of car driver performance,” in Games and learning alliance. GALA 2016. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 10056, eds R. Bottino, J. Jeuring, and R. Veltkamp (Cham: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50182-6_27
Prendinger, H., Oliveira, J., Catarino, J., Madruga, M., and Prada, R. (2014). iCO2: A networked game for collecting large-scale eco-driving behavior data. IEEE Intern. Comput. 18, 28–35. doi: 10.1109/MIC.2014.21
Rapp, C. (2016). Gamification as a tool to encourage eco-driving. Master’s degree thesis game and software engineering ISRN: BTH-AMT-EX–2016/CIM-16—SE. Available online at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:955207/FULLTEXT02 (accessed April 14, 2022).
Reiner, A., and Reder, J. (2014). “Collective data sharing to improve on driving efficiency and safety,” in Proceedings of the 6th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI ‘14). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 1–6. doi: 10.1145/2667239.2667266
Rodrigues, M. A. F., Macedo, D. V., Serpa, Y. R., and Serpa, Y. R. (2015). “Beyond fun: An interactive and educational 3D traffic rules game controlled by non-traditional devices,” in Proceedings of the 30th annual acm symposium on applied computing (SAC ‘15). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 239–246. doi: 10.1145/2695664.2695915
Rodríguez, M. D., Roa, R. R., Ibarra, J. E., and Curlango, C. M. (2014). “In-car ambient displays for safety driving gamification,” in Proceedings of the 5th Mexican conference on human-computer interaction (MexIHC ‘14). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 26–29. doi: 10.1145/2676690.2676701
Shi, C., Lee, H. J., Kurczak, J., and Lee, A. (2012). “Routine driving infotainment App: Gamification of performance driving,” in Proceedings of the 4th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI ‘12), (Portsmouth, NH).
Šimleša, M., Guegan, J., Blanchard, E., Tarpin-Bernard, F., and Buisine, S. (2018). The flow engine framework: A cognitive model of optimal human experience. Europes J. Psychol. 14, 232–253. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v14i1.1370
Soriguera, F., and Miralles, E. (2016). Driver feedback mobile app. Transport. Res. Proc. 18, 264–271. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.12.036
Steinberger, F., Schroeter, R., and Watling, C. N. (2017a). From road distraction to safe driving: Evaluating the effects of boredom and gamification on driving behaviour, physiological arousal, and subjective experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 75, 714–726. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.019
Steinberger, F., Schroeter, R., Foth, M., and Johnson, D. (2017b). “Designing gamified applications that make safe driving more engaging,” in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’17). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 2826–2839. doi: 10.1145/3025453.3025511
Stephens, R., and Smith, M. (2022). Effect of speed on flow and enjoyment for driving and rollercoasters. TRF Traffic Psychol. Behav. 85, 276–286. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2022.02.001
Stillwater, T. (2011). Comprehending Consumption: The Behavioral Basis and Implementation of Driver Feedback for Reducing Vehicle Energy Use. Ph.D. Dissertation. Davis, CA: University of California.
Stillwater, T., and Kurani, K. S. (2013). Drivers discuss ecodriving feedback: Goal setting, framing, and anchoring motivate new behaviors. Transport. Res. Part F 19, 85–96. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.007
Sundström, P., Wilfinger, D., Meschtscherjakov, A., Tscheligi, M., Schmidt, A., and Juhlin, O. (2012). “The car as an arena for gaming,” in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services companion (MobileHCI ‘12). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 233–236. doi: 10.1145/2371664.2371722
Tractinsky, N., Inbar, O., Tsimhoni, O., and Seder, T. (2011). “Slow down, you move too fast: Examining animation aesthetics to promote eco-driving,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ‘11). Association for computing machinery, (New York, NY), 193–202. doi: 10.1145/2381416.2381447
Tselios, C., Nousias, S., Bitzas, D., Amaxilatis, D., Akrivopoulos, O., Lalos, A. S., et al. (2019). “Enhancing an eco-driving gamification platform through wearable and vehicle sensor data integration,” in Proceedings of the 15th European Conference, AmI 2019, (Rome).
Vaezipour, A., Rakotonirainy, A., and Haworth, N. (2016). “Design of a gamified interface to improve fuel efficiency and safe driving,” in Design, user experience, and usability: Novel user experiences. DUXU 2016. lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 9747, ed. A. Marcus (Cham: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40355-7_31
Vaezipour, A., Rakotonirainy, A., Haworth, N., and Delhomme, P. (2019). A simulator study of the effect of incentive on adoption and effectiveness of an in-vehicle human machine interface. Transport. Res. Part F 60, 383–398. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.030
Keywords: review, gamification, eco-driving, flow, enjoyment
Citation: Stephens R (2022) A review of gamified approaches to encouraging eco-driving. Front. Psychol. 13:970851. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.970851
Received: 16 June 2022; Accepted: 05 August 2022;
Published: 02 September 2022.
Edited by:
Aslak Fyhri, Institute of Transport Economics, NorwayReviewed by:
K. D. V. Prasad, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), IndiaJakub Swacha, University of Szczecin, Poland
Copyright © 2022 Stephens. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Richard Stephens, r.stephens@keele.ac.uk